Talk:Waco siege

This entry also starts off with an upgrade to the "disputed facts" warning from the Branch Davidian page, since this article inherits the most contentious issues from that page. The transferred content is rife with inaccuracies and riddled by bias. Until the quality of this article is substantially improved, the warning should remain.--WacoKid 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

South Park

South Park did an entire episode spoof on this. Add it.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Category Removal

As mentioned on the "Category:Sieges involving the United States" talk page, I intend to remove the Waco Siege from that list unless I hear otherwise by April 10.

I offer two main reasons.

1) It is of a different sort from all the other (proper) sieges on this page.

2) The facts even as disputed on this page do not fit Wikipedia's definition of "siege" ("a military blockade of a city or fortress"). If every law-enforcement standoff qualifies as a "siege," then there will be thousands of entries on this page -- they happen literally every day all over the United States. Jcfreed 09:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Weasel

I don't know enough about this topic to comment on whether it is factually accurate, but I do know that it is filled with POV against the ATF/FBI, particularly through the use of weasel words. The extent of the bias makes it irritating to read. The entire article needs a rewrite. Ultiam 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is full of weasel words directed against the ATF/FBI but I also don't know enough about this issue. --Dcsmith 14:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The weasel words are directed against the branch davidians as well. For example, in the the minute by minute transcripts, wherever a davidian says something about gasoline or starting a fire, there is no cite as to where this came from, while there are citations for everything else. 139.182.146.55 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there is NOT ONE source provided for the entire "Investigation" section of the article. This section of the article in particular makes it's points based entirely on opinion, assumption, and unsourced "facts". 71.196.201.195 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Spamming this page - protection

In section 7.1 "Aftermath - Trial", someone has typed (and I quote) "BARNEY KILLED UR MOM IN WACO HE THROUGH FIREY SHIT AT UR DOG". Owing to the sensitivity of the subject matter, the ongoing issue with regards to NPOV and weasel words, and the potential for spam and vandalism, this page should be semi- or even fully-protected as soon as the spam has been removed. Opinions?86.143.162.224 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I have now removed the offending phrase, but please offer your opinions on write-protecting this page86.143.162.224 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've made some additions here, but this article is still of poor quality, and is now overlong. Rather than presenting an evenhanded treatment of the controversy, it reads, as others have noted, like a point/counterpoint of various POVs, some of which are extreme, unsubstantiated, and/or of questionable relevance. To my mind, the main issues that make the events at Waco important and interesting more than a decade after they occurred are lost in the bickering. Did ATF display a serious lack of judgment in serving its warrant when its plan was so well known that reporters arrived on the scene before the agents did? In view of the perhaps unsurprising outcome, should FBI have accumulated 2 tanks, 10 Bradley fighting vehicles, humvees, nightstalker aircraft, helicopters, and the assistance of the army, air force, and two state national guards--even if so doing was technically within the bounds of the law? I can't say that these questions are evident from what we have here.

I would agree with Ultiam that this article needs a total rewrite. A rewrite, though, will involve the deletion of substantial portions of what is already here. Before that process begins, let's hear from some of the other contributors.

Puzurinsusinak 17:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Puzurinsusinak

all controversies addressed should be included. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll agree that there's a lot of "battleing POV's" as it were, but that's the nature of the beast here. You have on one side, dozens of federal agents who might be subject to criminal charges if the other side is right. On the "other side," the branch Davidians, you have most of the major actors dead (justifiably or at their own hand, according to the ATF/FBI). Thus, the situation itself lends itself away from being able to objectively verify what actually happened. Most of what we know is pieced together from various conflicting sources (some of which are self-contradictory) and spotty news coverage. Added to this the fact that the actual site was demolished several weeks after the siege ended, along with lots of missing evidence (i.e. part of the front door dissapeared, quite a difficult thing to lose as it was, well, a large solid steel door). I say let the controversy stand, take out anything you know is blatantly wrong or tone down inflamatory statements (i.e. there were no "reinforced bunkers," and the ATF did not have a "military assault force"), and let people be intelligent humans and figure out who they believe. After all, that's what this comes down to: who do you believe, and why? Ehwhatsthatyousay 02:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Military Conflict?

Is this infobox appropriate for this article? I know they were criticized for using military tactics and weaponry but the FBI & ATF are law enforcement organizations who had legal warrants, this wasn't a military operation. --D. Monack | talk 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, that format seems entirely inappropriate. 130.246.132.26 09:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this issue is not about "using military tactics and weaponry" to serve a search warrant. That is a seperate issue and would properly be adressed on Fouth and Fifth Amendment grounds. The heart of this issue as it applies to the Military infobox and this article was the fact that federal and state Department of Defense ASSETS and PERSONEL were involved in the organization, planning, and execution of the entire bloody operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.13.109 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of DOD assets seems irrelevant. To illustrate, the shootdown of KAL Flight 007, for example, used Soviet state Ministry of Defence assets and personnel, but no conflict infobox is present on that article, or for Iran Air Flight 655, which used US DOD assets and personnel in its "organization, planning, and execution." Likewise, no conflict infobox is present there. If we want to get technical, DOD assets are used every time the police use GPS to track down suspects. Clearly different or at least additional factors are needed to warrant the use of the infobox. As it stands, the inclusion of women and children as combatants in the infobox seems particularly cynical and non-neutral- how can they be considered "Strength" of "Combatants"?

• Col Thomas Lujan, JAG, covered many of the military issues over Waco in the War College

publication Parameters in Autumn 1997. Basically, ATF lied about Koresh operating a meth lab in order to get military assets--including training by Special Forces and national guard helicopters--for the raid. (If they lied about that, what does that say for their credibility on other subjects?) The War on Drugs allows an exemption to the Posse Commitatus Act prohibition on the use of the military in civilian law enforcement (as does, apparently, the War on Terror). Abuse of this system in not good.Naaman Brown 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NEED CONFLICT INCIDENT BOX I like the box idea, but not much of the lingo. (FYI "Waco Battle" is not a phrase I've heard before, and I wrote a book on the topic I think it's Original research). It's possible to create a new box - See WP:Infobox for details of how and Wiki process. It could be called something like "Conflict Incident" which would work for a lot of situations of conflict between groups (Valentine Day Massacre, Haymarket Riot) and between groups and governments (Waco Siege, Chicago Democratic Convention 1968). Here's the categories, to be set up in a similar box to current one. What do you think? If someone knows how to / wants to create box, go for it. Otherwise I'll give it a try next week...

• Infobox Conflict incident
• Title:
• Image
• Caption
• Incident
• place
• date(s)
• participants
• leaders
• description
• Casualties
• ramifications (possibile addition)

Carol Moore 01:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

References

Reference #9 on the page is listed as:

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t {{{author}}}, A fire that won't die, [[{{{publisher}}}]],
Sept. 20, 1999..

I don't know what this might be referring to, but a lot of the facts on the page rely on it. --Richrobison 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. The cite template had its parameters wrong. --Dead3y3 ^{Talk page} 09:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Delta Force Presence

No mention of the FACT that the US Military had members of the Combat Applications Group present at Waco? There is verifiable evidence of this FACT and bureaucrats have at various times admitted and denied this. Needs to be included. Ikilled007 05:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Will NOT be included, due to "political correctness". 65.173.105.79 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

BS. please add info can be sourced. This is important. Chendy 09:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

final assault section

i just have one comment to make about the 'final assault' section. it has a sentence that says some of the people went into the underground bunker. i don't believe that is accurate. i don't have my books anymore about the branch davidians (students of the seven seal). i do know that from private conversations with clive doyle he has stated that no one was able to get to the underground bunkers because the tanks had crushed the walls and there was too much debris for them to access the bunkers to escape the fire. that is why they found several bodies near the door. they could not get into the bunker. vlwarren nov.20,2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.14.141 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the inaccurate info above with accurate, sourced info and made a variety of minor changes in the article up to the controversies section, then ran out of time. There is a lot of unsourced stuff and questionable stuff in that section, not to mention whole article, and I put Citation Needed in a few place. And then there is all the missing information relevant to various points made. and points left out. (Like Davidians being released 25 years early, which I put in.) If you want a lot of info with footnotes to clean up article, check out my thoroughly researched book (online for last few years): The Davidian Massacre. I just don't have time to make the changes that need to be made - esp. when people come back and take out important sourced information later when you aren't looking :-(

Carol Moore 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Chronology April 19 Section

In the chronology section, every quotation of the surveillance tapes that has Davidians talking about or alledgedly referring to them spreading incindiaries, needs specification or source. What's the point in stating these unconfirmed quotations if there is no ground for them? It creates bias in the section, leading readers to the conclusion that the Davidians burnt up their own homes or contributed to it. There is no solid ground for that conclusion. 91.177.233.39 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First hope you don't mind me moving this into proper order and creating a section. Second, yes this could be sourced a bit better. While I have not checked these point by point against original transcripts, there are FBI interpretations of the FBI surveillance tapes that sound pretty much like what is in chronology. Other items could be countered by more accurate info. There is also some quasi-incriminating evidence from a Davidian survivor about what he thought he might have heard indicating a few Davidians had a plan to start a fire to drive off the FBI, but it wasn't a suicide pact, and IF it happened, it didn't happen til after the tank started the first fire. I have a lot of accurate info in my book The Davidian Massacre and in lots of files saved on my computer after the book was published in 1995, but no time to correct all this.

Carol Moore 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Fair use rationale for Image:Waco2.jpg

Image:Waco2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Waco4.jpg

Image:Waco4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)